 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: Facebook defamation case. |  |
|
What WA's first Facebook defamation case means to you and me
| Quote: | You may not be Rupert Murdoch but if you post content on social media, whether you think it harmless or not, you are a publisher just like him - and could be held liable for legal action.
Jennifer Irwin, principal of JIP Legal, based in Melbourne, told Fairfax Media the legalities of what was published on social media was a "Pandora's box".
She said the West Australian court case which recently saw a Bunbury woman ordered to pay $12,500 to her estranged husband, because of comments she made about him on Facebook, was likely just the beginning of a raft of social media matters to front Australian courts.
"People have forgotten that Facebook is a public forum and you need to be mindful that if you wouldn't publish it in a newspaper, you shouldn't put it on Facebook," Ms Irwin said.
"I think we are going to start seeing more and more of these sorts of cases.
"It's a Pandora's Box; we are really just starting to see the beginning of it.
"The internet is so instant, people have a thought, write it and publish. But it's not just limited to their friends seeing it, I think people are forgetting that aspect."
Like in the Bunbury case, if someone feels their reputation has in any way been danaged as a result of something said on social media, the person responsible can be taken to court for defamation.
Ms Irwin said the internet had made the process of publishing information much faster and easier but people should still make considered decsisions before publishing, whether it be in a publication or online.
"Prior to the internet you would have to write something, post it in the mail and get someone willing to agree to publish your comments," she said.
Ms Irwin suggested those about to post something based on emotions, should "sit on it for a day, then re-read it when you are calm and consider whether it should really be posted".
"Once it's published it's there forever, you've lost control once it's published," she said.
"Even if you take it down later people may have taken a photo or a screenshot or shared, forwarded or retweeted it."
Ms Irwin urged people to check their privacy settings to reduce the amount of people who can see content they post on social media.
She said people also needed to think twice about sharing other people's content.
"Retweeting information is one you have to be careful with," she said.
"If you retweet something you are exposing yourself to a potential defamation claim."
She said disclaimers on profile or on tweets really meant little in terms of whether someone can be held liable for defamation.
Ms Irwin said she had also noticed social media content being used as evidence in family law court matters in recent times.
She said people needed to be careful about what they portray on social media, if that could contradict anything they say in court.
"Some parties have claimed they don't have much money but the lifestyle portrayed in photographs on social media contradict that and is used in evidence to disprove them."
Ms Irwin also highlighted the risks of hosting online discussions, which can be as simple as a business or organisation having a Facebook page, which allows comments to be made on posts on their wall.
She said people should regularaly monitor what people post to their social media accounts and create a procedure for considering whether posts are acceptable. |
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/what-was-first-facebook-defamation-case-means-to-you-and-me-20150105-12ib74.html |
|
|
|
 |
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Don't facebook nor twitter. Not interested in what someone had for lunch. I honestly wish our players would ditch twitter all together.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
Mountains Magpie
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Somewhere between now and then
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If you post something online about someone, and it can be demonstrated to be true, then it ain't defamation.
If you defame someone, they have to quantify their loss. That said, damages could be $1 but they may be able to afford the best barrister so legal costs could be a bank breaker.
_________________
Spiral progress, unstoppable,
exhausted sources replaced by perversion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
